In Making Things Happen, James Woodward influentially combines a causal modeling analysis of actual causation with an interventionist semantics for the counterfactuals encoded in causal models. This leads to circularities, since interventions are defined in terms of both actual causation and interventionist counterfactuals. Circularity can be avoided by instead combining a causal modeling analysis with a semantics along the lines of that given by David Lewis, on which counterfactuals are to be evaluated with respect to worlds in which their antecedents are realized by miracles. I argue, pace Woodward, that causal modeling analyses perform just as well when combined with the Lewisian semantics as when combined with the interventionist semantics. Reductivity therefore remains a reasonable hope.
KeywordsDirected Path Causal Model Counterfactual Dependence Interventionist Model Actual Causation
For helpful comments, I would like to thank Michael Baumgartner, Christopher Hitchcock, Wolfgang Spohn, two anonymous referees, participants of the ‘Actual Causation Workshop’ in Konstanz in September 2010, and members of the audience for a presentation of an early version of this paper at the British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Conference in 2010. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SP279/15-1) and by the James S. McDonnell Foundation Causal Learning Collaborative.
- Collins, J., Hall, N., & Paul, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Glymour, C., & Wimberly, F. (2007). Actual causes and thought experiments. In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & H. Silverstein (Eds.), Causation and explanation (pp. 43–67). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Halpern, J. Y., & Hitchcock, C. (ms.). Graded causation and defaults.Google Scholar
- Halpern, J. Y. (2008). Defaults and normality in causal structures. In G. Brewka &, J. Lang (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 198–208). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Halpern, J. Y., & Hitchcock, C. (2010). Actual causation and the art of modeling. In R. Dechter, H. Geffner, & J. Y. Halpern (Eds.), Heuristics, probability and causality: A tribute to Judea Pearl (pp. 383–406). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Hitchcock, C. (2001b). A tale of two effects. Philosophical Review, 110, 361–396.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (Ed.). (1986). Postscripts to “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow”. In Philosophical papers (Vol. II, pp. 52–66). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (2004). Causation as influence. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 75–106). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Loewer, B. (2007). Counterfactuals and the second law. In H. Price & R. Corry (Eds.), Causation, physics and the constitution of reality: Russell’s republic revisited (pp. 293–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Menzies, P. (2004b). Difference-making in context. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 139–180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar